******* nothing makes me more mad than ******** who think that all Genetically Modified plants are bad. So it's bad that they contain more nutrients? That they have natural and organic pesticides? That they yield more food?

The issue is the title 'GMO'; It applies to entirely too many things.
If you take pollen from one strain of corn, and fertilize another corn plant with it, then that is technically even a GMO. Nobody was in the lab injecting ****, nobody ******* changed it's DNA in a science lab. It was literally just a process that could've happened on it's own, given time.

Nothing I said was contradicted by anything you said. Read the ******* comment before you thumb down and try to reply sounding smart. I literally worked in a ******* lab that created GMO's as a summer job.

IIRC All GMO's are infertile, meaning poor farmers have to buy new crops from whoever sells them, instead of replanting the product they already have, thereby making them completely dependent on the seller to acquire more.

Nope, GMO's aren't infertile.
Most companies which sell GMO grain for farmers have contracts however which say they are only allowed to use the grain for say a harvest or a year etc.

After contract expires the farmer needs to legally rebuy the contract from the company to plant the grain even if they have grain leftover from the previous harvest when they had a previous contract.
This is what we hear about generally; Monsanto or whatever GMO producer finds out that farmer x is replanting/distributing their grain without contract/license with them and so the company sues the farmer, farmer x then tries to counter-sue saying that big GMO company contaminated their crop harvests / if they gave spare grain to others they then claim cross-contamination etc.
This draws out a lengthy legal battle as studies are done and they generally conclude that the farmers crop has a high enough % that it could not have occurred from cross contamination and that farmer x is in the wrong.
Farmer x then generally does emotional pleas / slanders the GMO as big corporate menace / says the studies were tampered with etc.

GMO's are honestly fantastic and save an amazing amount of lives world-wide, you'd be surprised what's considered GMO and while I'm sure there are cases of GMO companies acting poorly, for the most part it's hearsay

>IIRC All GMO's are infertile
Sadly a myth. Monsanto does own the patent for such a technology though. Those companies do try to make farmers buy new seeds, but only because that's how they make their money.

Nah there was a controversy when they developed the tech to make it so they'd be infertile but apparently farmers threw a fit and from what I can tell people that were already lobbying against GMO's snagged their fingers into that conflict and tried to leverage and twist it to push their all natural stance against GMO's in general because GMOS are spoooooky because like, what if, the government was using them to secretly control our BRAAAAAAAINS? And like oh my god, what if they're just saying the CHEMICALS they put in our water are to purify it and in truth it's actually to make us all more docile. OH OH OH WHAT IF, OMG, WHAT IF THE CLOUDS, The clouds left behind air planes, were actually trails of chemicals meant to give us all cancer so the illuminati can reclaim the earth and control the worlds population?!?!?!?!?!

Retard at >>#43 claims gmo products ( AKA THE ******* PLANTS ) are infertile because they are manipulaited via GMO. He said literally that ALL GMOS are infertile. Go **** yourself you angry piece of ****

**** off. GMOs make farming easier, but they are not necessary by any means. I run a farm, mostly to feed my family, but we make a small profit. I only use organics and its not that bad, not at all comparable to what you said.

No it isn't, without GMO crops millions of people would have starved to death. Hundreds of thousands of children would have gone blind if it wasn't for the genetically modified rice that has vitamin A. And without GMO crops, we have 0 chance of feeding the growing populations of the world.

... the simplest most basic sacrificial anode can already get away all the ******* fluoride in your ******* drinking water, wow what a great way of poisioning you, beyond the fact you would have to drink, in one sitting, so much water with the regular fluoride amount that your stomach would rip asunder bevor you would even reach nearly the poisones levels, you will most likely never drink that much ******* tap water IN YOUR ENTIRE MONTH!

And GMO? OH SCARY GMO!!! ALL THIS DANGEROUS CHEMICLES INSIDE LIKE DNA! Oh the ******* terror what it could do to somebody! Not like ******* tomatoes from today look not even remotly as the original! Not like carrots where once upon a time purple and tasted terrible! But yes if the man does the same thing he does in GMO over generations through inbreeding and excessive culturisation than it´s ******* A OK!

Funnily enough, you are right. They wouldn't publish such things otherwise. I've seen the reports of certain 'failures' of specific GMO varieties to deliver what was promised. Long story short, there's a town in Canada where a bio-organism grown into corn has 'infected' the population. The self replicating bacteria housed in the corn replicates in the gut and denies the body nutrients. You won't notice it at first until, if you are female, you have babies. They will all be starved of essential nutrients and be still born. And yes, there is an entire town in Canada where this HAS happened. Think they'll ever win a law suit? Not likely, see below, the shill comments are fierce. They and stupid morons with half the knowledge keep the educated from passing data. GMO's are two things, weaponized or OK. Monsanto only make the weaponized variety. Because 'land grabs' from farmer suicides 'is a thing'.

Could you make sure to put big red circles around the labels? My severely limited mental capabilities prohibit me from seeing which label is supposed to refer to what without more indication of what is what.

Thank you, I wouldn't have figured out what that represented without the labels. For real though, labels are just lazy. Isn't an artist's job to convey something through their art instead of writing "THIS DUDE IS THE BADDIE AND THIS DUDE IS THE GOODIE"?

flouride is good for your teeth
all food is GMO. it's literally why subsistence farming is even a thing. We forced our food to evolve for our purposes.
Vaccinations are necessary for our modern society.
Chemtrails have no evidence.

Now see i don´t want to sound butthurt but as someone who works daily with water in not just industrial but also public services, and who gets felt every month updates to the good ol german standarisation laws for sanitary work ( nevermind all the other nonesense i get ) i can tell you why i can straight up tell you it´s ********.

Dunno where you get your tapwater from, but most in most contries it is such regulaited that your body can work it off bevor it ever gets to settle itself that much up. It´s more likely mouth breathers swallow their toothpaste after cleaning their teeths. This people somehow got from additional sources beyond their tap water fluoride, which then of course starts to stack. But in this case it´s the gold ol " watch out what you eat kids ".

The argument here is that tap water alone causes calcification, which is simply impossible in normal circumstances, even IF you drink only fluoride enriched tapwater for decades of your life, which is simply shouldn´t happen.

The AI of fluoride from all sources (including non-dietary sources) is 0.05 mg/kg body weight per day for both children and adults, including pregnant and lactating women

In 2011 the World Health Organization stated that 1.5 mg/L should be an absolute upper bound and that 0.5 mg/L may be an appropriate lower limit.

So lets do the math, the average man should weight 80 kg, which translates to 4mg per day maximum. now even if you take the absolut upper limit, you reach a daily intake of 2 l of water just 3 mg, most communitys in america use 0,7mg per l. You would require MUCH more then tap water to poison yourself over decades with fluoride, i recommand to stop eating chalk.

Which is certainly good information, but there is a big trend in America to drink a gallon plus per day. Which is ******** for most people, sure, but I work outside these days and drink at least 3 liters.

I do understand that it's unlikely I drink water at the upper limit, but it's possible, and thereby potentially over that limit. Very unlikely.

And yeah, mouth-breathers could be skewing the data. Gotta account for stupidity, unfortunately.

People who think GMOs are bad for you are the dumbest people. I'm in a PhD program and even the super liberal hippy environmental biologists don't think GMOs are bad for you. I don't know a single scientist who thinks GMOs are bad for you. It's only idiots.

I would 110% take the opinion of a academic doctor(a PhD) over a medical doctor in terms of gmo and vaccine benefits. Doctors administer cures and diagnose people. Academics read papers about them and research them.

They own the GMO soybean they made. As in, anyone who grows it RENTS THE ******* SEEDS. If anyone else uses the seeds, Monsanto will sue them into bankruptcy. However, it's nearly impossible to prevent them blowing into an adjacent farm or eroding onto that land. And then, because you have ONE Monsanto GMO plant, they put the farmer out of business.

That's not a hypothetical. They are known to inspect non-Monsanto farms and prosecute.

But we produce far more corn than we use. I'm not specifically against GMO food, just the business practices we allow surrounding them. If a food is modified in a lab, I personally don't believe we regulate the use/copyright correctly. Someone shouldn't be able to patent a plant, it hurts the entire industry and can put adjacent farmers out of business.

Either people think I don't know what I'm talking about or they're missing the point. Monsanto's over-control of their patented seed hurts ALL farmers, which can hurt supply, and I don't agree with it. Obviously humans have modified food for thousands of years, and that's fine.

But then we can get into foods modified to resist pesticide that causes health problems, of course. Roundup ready seeds cause huge amounts of disease in India, for example, because of the poor usage and disposal of the pesticide. However, the ground has been polluted by Roundup, and now nothing else can grow, despite the fact that India really isn't equipped to be using the pesticide properly.

Then enforcement needs to be managed, if you stick to that stance. Monsanto absolutely cannot be allowed to continue litigating small time operations into bankruptcy.

It is their responsibility when they push the product in a market they know is unable to properly handle it. If they want to help with a waste disposal system and educate about the necessity of masks and proper drainage into waste processing, by all means sell there. If not, it's borderline criminal to allow the contaminant to get a quick buck.

Nothing really, people allergic to a thing could be allergic to a GMO if you put a gene from the thing into it. That's basically it. I mean you could intentionally make a GMO that looked normal and is toxic to people if you wanted but that's a lot of effort when you could poison people with... poison.
Source: I have a BS in Biochemistry and did some genetic engineering in school.

>They put eel DNA in tomatoes but don't tell you.
Ok... what do you mean by that? I looked this up but as far as I can tell you actually mean that a gene from a species of flounder was spliced into the tomatoes. That gene allows the creation of an anti-freeze protein which allows the tomato plant to survive in cold climates. The source of that gene is irrelevant, no matter where they got it from it functions the same way.

>Vegans aren't atually vegans anymore
DNA is not a living organism, it's a molecule. And it's a minuscule fraction of what you consume; by weight you eat more micro-organisms (which also contain DNA!) on your food than you do DNA from that food. DNA is perfectly vegan if you care about that sort of thing.

>People should know what they are eating.
And if they label it the argument will change to "See! They have to label it, so it must be dangerous!" Either way it's totally harmless and does not matter.

>Restrictions. Therr are none. They combined the dna of insecticides with corn.
Uh what? Insecticides are chemicals which (typically) cause respiratory failure in insects. They don't have DNA. What you (presumably) mean to say is that they've created strains of corn with the ability to produce insecticides. Well I'm sorry to tell you this, but insecticides come from plants. All plants have them. Chocolate is an insecticide. See, plants don't want to be eaten, so they create chemicals which kill pests. But over time pests build up an immunity, so these new plants create more potent poisons to kill insects more effectively. This is not dangerous to humans; insects' respiratory systems are totally different to ours.

>Corn is now so toxic harvesters have to ware hazmat suits.
Even if the compounds were poisonous you'd still have to eat them.

>The FDA no longer recognizes corn as a food.
And you were trolling... ****.

Vegans don't want to consume products that involve hurting animals. Thus injecting animal DNA into vegetables goes against what thy believe in. A vegan would like to know if animals were harmed in the making of their food. It's pretty simple to understand...

Oh **** me it's platnium. No ******* wonder you don't get it, you don't get ******* anything. You are the biggest joke on this whole ******* website. Consistently you have the most thumbed down comments I've ever seen, but you still go around thinking you are more intelligent than every one here. **** off, get a ******* life.

I like how he labels the water with water and the fluoride in the water but he doesn't label the corn as corn he just puts the "gmo" on it. Also what's the arguement now against GMOs and fluoride? I thought we were done with that argument.